Edoxaban Versus Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.

OBJECTIVE: During the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, management of anticoagulation therapy in hospitalized patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) was simplified to low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) followed by oral anticoagulation, mainly owing to the risk of drug-drug interactions. However, not all oral anticoagulants carry the same risk. METHODS: Observational, retrospective, and multicenter study that consecutively included hospitalized patients with AF anticoagulated with LMWH followed by oral anticoagulation or edoxaban concomitantly with empirical COVID-19 therapy. Time-to-event (mortality, total bleeds, and admissions to ICU) curves, using an unadjusted Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression model adjusted for potential confounders were constructed. RESULTS: A total of 232 patients were included (80.3 ± 7.7 years, 50.0% men, CHA2DS2-VASc 4.1 ± 1.4; HAS-BLED 2.6 ± 1.0). During hospitalization, patients were taking azithromycin (98.7%), hydroxychloroquine (89.7%), and ritonavir/lopinavir (81.5%). The mean length of hospital stay was 14.6 ± 7.2 days, and total follow-up was 31.6 ± 13.4 days; 12.9% of patients required admission to ICU, 18.5% died, and 9.9% had a bleeding complication (34.8% major bleeding). Length of hospital stay was longer in patients taking LMWH (16.0 ± 7.7 vs 13.3 ± 6.5 days; P = .005), but mortality and total bleeds were similar in patients treated with edoxaban and those treated with LMWH followed by oral anticoagulation. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality rates, arterial and venous thromboembolic complications, and bleeds did not significantly differ between AF patients receiving anticoagulation therapy with edoxaban or LMWH followed by oral anticoagulation. However, the duration of hospitalization was significantly lower with edoxaban. Edoxaban had a similar therapeutic profile to LMWH followed by oral anticoagulation and may provide additional benefits.

Rivaroxaban for Prevention of Thrombotic Events, Hospitalization, and Death in Outpatients With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) is associated with heightened risks of venous and arterial thrombosis and hospitalization due to respiratory failure. To assess whether prophylactic anticoagulation can safely reduce the frequency of venous and arterial thrombosis, hospitalization, and death in nonhospitalized patients with symptomatic COVID-19 and at least one thrombosis risk factor, we conducted the PREVENT-HD double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial (A Study of Rivaroxaban to Reduce the Risk of Major Venous and Arterial Thrombotic Events, Hospitalization and Death in Medically Ill Outpatients With Acute, Symptomatic COVID-19] Infection). METHODS: PREVENT-HD was conducted between August 2020 and April 2022 at 14 US integrated health care delivery networks. A virtual trial design used remote informed consent and clinical monitoring and facilitated data collection through electronic health record integration with a cloud-based research platform. Nonhospitalized patients with symptomatic COVID-19 and at least one thrombosis risk factor were enrolled and randomly assigned to either 10 mg of oral rivaroxaban or placebo daily for 35 days. The primary efficacy outcome was time to first occurrence of a composite of symptomatic venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, acute limb ischemia, non-central nervous system systemic arterial embolism, hospitalization, or death through day 35. The principal safety end point was International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis critical-site or fatal bleeding. The last study visit was on day 49. RESULTS: The study was terminated prematurely because of enrollment challenges and a lower-than-expected blinded pooled event rate. A total of 1284 patients underwent randomization with complete accrual of primary events through May 2022. No patients were lost to follow-up. The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 22 of 641 in the rivaroxaban group and 19 of 643 in the placebo group (3.4% versus 3.0%; hazard ratio, 1.16 [95% CI, 0.63-2.15]; P=0.63). No patient in either group experienced critical-site or fatal bleeding. One patient receiving rivaroxaban had a major bleed. CONCLUSIONS: The study was terminated prematurely after enrollment of 32% of planned accrual because of recruitment challenges and lower-than-expected event rate. Rivaroxaban prescribed for 35 days in nonhospitalized patients with symptomatic COVID-19 at risk for thrombosis did not appear to reduce a composite end point of venous and arterial thrombotic events, hospitalization, and death. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT04508023.

COVID-19-associated coagulopathy in children: A multicenter observational cohort study.

SARS-CoV-2 infection (coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]) induces a stark procoagulant state, with many hospitalized adults developing thrombosis despite prophylactic anticoagulation. This study aimed to characterize hemostatic parameters and associated clinical outcomes of COVID-19, such as thrombosis and bleeding, in children and to assess thromboprophylaxis use. This multicenter observational cohort study included 79 patients aged up to 18 years admitted to all pediatric hospitals in Québec, Canada, with SARS-CoV-2 infection during a 5-month period. D-dimers were elevated in 18/19 patients (94.7%) and fibrinogen in 15/26 patients (60%). Eleven patients (13.9%) received anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis. One thrombotic event and one major bleed were observed.

Waterhouse-Friderichsen Syndrome with Bilateral Adrenal Hemorrhage Associated with Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Bacteremia in an Adult Patient with History of Intravenous Drug Use.

BACKGROUND Waterhouse-Friderichsen syndrome, also known as acute adrenal insufficiency due to adrenal gland hemorrhage, is an uncommon and frequently fatal condition classically presenting with fever, shock, rash, and coagulopathy. Although most often associated with Meningococcemia, many other etiologies have been implicated, including reports of Staphylococcus aureus infection on autopsy examinations. This report details an adult intravenous drug user with adrenal hemorrhage associated with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteremia. CASE REPORT A 58-year-old man with a history of intravenous drug use presented to the hospital with weakness. Vitals were initially normal and exam findings were notable for decreased right-sided motor strength. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed a cervical epidural abscess with spinal cord compression. Despite initiation of broad-spectrum antibiotics and intravenous fluids, the patient progressed to shock, requiring vasopressor administration, and his blood cultures later grew MRSA. Further imaging of the abdomen/pelvis was completed, revealing bilateral adrenal hemorrhage. Random cortisol at that time was 5.6 µg/dL, confirming a diagnosis of critical illness-related corticosteroid insufficiency in addition to likely septic and spinal shock. The patient was initiated on hydrocortisone with improvement in his hypotension. He was transitioned to prednisone and fludrocortisone in addition to 8 weeks of antibiotics after achieving clinical stability. CONCLUSIONS This report brings to attention the risk of adrenal hemorrhage and acute adrenal insufficiency as a sequela of the relatively common illness of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. As symptoms of adrenal insufficiency can overlap with septic shock related to the primary condition, this diagnosis requires a high index of suspicion in the critically ill patient.

Clinical evaluation of the safety and efficacy of enoxaparin in patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), increases thrombotic risk in hospitalised patients. The rate of thrombosis in patients with COVID-19 is unclear. The role of heparin, frequently used in the management of hospitalised patients, also needs to be clarified. In this study, we investigated the efficacy and safety of enoxaparin given at prophylactic or therapeutic dose in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, and evaluated its role in the development of disease in terms of mortality, and incidence of thrombotic and bleeding events. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We included 141 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, admitted to five different wards (one intensive care unit, 2 sub-intensive care units, and 2 general infectious disease units) of Cotugno Hospital, a tertiary care hospital in Naples, Italy, between March and May 2020. RESULTS: Over a median time of 17 days (IQR 11-25), enoxaparin was given to 90/141 patients (63.8%) of whom 65 took a prophylactic and 25 a therapeutic dose. We documented 14 episodes of thrombosis (9.9%); almost all were cases of pulmonary embolism. No significant difference in terms of thromboembolic prevention was found between those patients not receiving anticoagulants and those on prophylactic or therapeutic dose of enoxaparin. Five episodes of major bleeding occurred (3.5%); therapeutic dose of enoxaparin was associated with a greater bleeding risk than prophylactic dose (p=0.002). During follow-up, 31 patients (22%) died; these were mostly elderly men with two or more comorbidities at admission. No advantages of enoxaparin, either as prophylaxis or at high doses, in terms of mortality were observed. At multivariate analysis, low estimated glomerular filtration rate, and high total bilirubin and fasting hyperglycemia were independently associated with a higher mortality. DISCUSSION: We did not observe advantages in terms of either thromboembolic prevention or mortality of enoxaparin, which however was more frequently used in patients with more severe disease. Prophylactic enoxaparin was not seen to be associated with bleeding risk.

Effectiveness and safety of extended thromboprophylaxis in post-discharge patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The effect of extended thromboprophylaxis in improving the prognosis of adult patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) after discharge remains debatable. This meta-analysis was aimed to determine the advantages and disadvantages of extended thromboprophylaxis in these patients. METHODS: Different databases such as PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched for studies that evaluated the effects of extended thromboprophylaxis in post-discharge patients with COVID-19 until 13 June 2022. The primary efficacy outcome was defined by the composite outcome of thromboembolism and all-cause mortality, and the safety outcome was defined by bleeding events. The odds ratios (ORs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) of efficacy and safety outcomes were calculated using fixed- or random-effects model. Interaction analysis was performed to assess and compare observational studies and randomised controlled trials (RCTs). A sensitivity analysis was performed after excluding studies of poor quality. RESULTS: Eight studies involving 10,148 patients were included. The results confirmed that extended thromboprophylaxis, primarily prophylactic use of anticoagulants for <35 days, was significantly associated with reduced composite outcome in high-risk post-discharge patients with COVID-19 (OR: 0.52; 95 % CI: 0.41-0.67, P = 0.000). Interaction analysis revealed that the effect estimates were consistent between the RCT and observational studies (Pinteraction = 0.310). Furthermore, extended thromboprophylaxis did not increase the risk of major bleeding events (OR: 1.64; 95 % CI: 0.95-2.82, P = 0.075). CONCLUSION: In post-discharge patients with COVID-19 at high risk of thromboembolism, extended thromboprophylaxis, primarily prophylactic use of anticoagulants for <35 days, can significantly reduce the risk of thrombosis and all-cause mortality without increasing the risk of major bleeding events. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022339399.

Anticoagulation in COVID-19 patients - An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Thromboembolic events are common complications of COVID-19. Clinical study results on safety and efficacy of anticoagulation in COVID-19 are controversial. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This report updates our systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing standard prophylactic anticoagulation and intermediate or therapeutic anticoagulation in COVID-19 patients. We searched eligible studies for the update up to 4 February 2022 by weekly monitoring of RCTs in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). RESULTS: For this update we included five new trials; a total of 13 RCTs with 7364 patients. Certainty of evidence was very low to low. We are uncertain whether low-dose prophylactic anticoagulation is favoured over placebo or no anticoagulation in the outpatient- or post-discharge-setting. In hospitalized patients with moderate and severe COVID-19, intermediate-dose anticoagulation may have little or no effect on thrombotic events or death (RR 1.03, 95 % CI 0.86-1.24), but may increase severe bleeding non-significantly (RR 1.48, 95 % CI 0.53-4.15). Therapeutic-dose anticoagulation may decrease thrombotic events or deaths in hospitalized patients with moderate COVID-19 (RR 0.64, 95 % CI 0.38-1.07; fixed-effect model RR 0.72, 95 % CI 0.57-0.91), but may have little or no effect in patients with severe disease (RR 0.98, 95 % CI 0.86-1.12). With therapeutic-dose anticoagulation, the risk of major bleeding may increase regardless of COVID-19 severity (RR 1.78, 95 % CI 1.15-2.74). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalized, moderately ill COVID-19 patients may benefit from therapeutic-dose anticoagulation, while critically ill patients may not. Risk of major bleeding must be considered.

Efficacy and safety of heparin full-dose anticoagulation in hospitalized non-critically ill COVID-19 patients: a meta-analysis of multicenter randomized controlled trials.

Arterial and venous thrombotic events in COVID-19 cause significant morbidity and mortality among patients. Although international guidelines agree on the need for anticoagulation, it is unclear whether full-dose heparin anticoagulation confers additional benefits over prophylactic-dose anticoagulation. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of heparin full-dose anticoagulation in hospitalized non-critically ill COVID-19 patients. We searched Pubmed/Medline, EMBASE, Clinicaltrials.gov, medRxiv.org and Cochrane Central Register of clinical trials dated up to April 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing full-dose heparin anticoagulation to prophylactic-dose anticoagulation or standard treatment in hospitalized non-critically ill COVID-19 patients were included in our pooled analysis. The primary endpoint was the rate of major thrombotic events and the co-primary endpoint was the rate of major bleeding events. We identified 4 studies, all of them multicenter, randomizing 2926 patients. Major thrombotic events were 23/1524 (1.5%) in full-dose heparin anticoagulation versus 57/1402 (4.0%) in prophylactic-dose [relative risk (RR) 0.39; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25-0.62; p˂0.01; I2 = 0%]. Clinical relevant bleeding events occurred in 1.7% (26/1524) among patients treated with heparin full anticoagulation dose compared to 1.1% (15/1403) in prophylactic-dose group (RR 1.60; 95% CI 0.85-3.03; p = 0.15; I2 = 20%). Mortality was 6.6% (101/1524) versus 8.6% (121/1402) (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.33-1.19; p = 0.15). In this meta-analysis of high quality multicenter randomized trials, full-dose anticoagulation with heparin was associated with lower rate of major thrombotic events without differences in bleeding risk and mortality in hospitalized non critically ill COVID-19 patients.Study registration PROSPERO, review no. CRD42022301874.

The effect of low-dose and high-dose low-molecular-weight-heparin and aspirin thromboprophylaxis on clinical outcome and mortality in critical ill patients with COVID-19: A retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of different thromboprophylaxis regimens on clinical outcomes and mortality of critical ill patients with coronavirus disease -19 (COVID-19). METHODS: We investigated the medical records of patients with positive COVID-19 (using polymerase chain reaction test) who were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) at Sakarya University Hospital, Sakarya, Turkey, from March 2020 to January 2021. We included patients under anticoagulant therapy in the clinical course. The patients were allocated to 3 groups: Group A - low-dose (prophylactic) low-molecular-weight-heparin (LMWH) therapy, Group B - high-dose (therapeutic) LMWH therapy, and patients that received aspirin additional to the high-dose (therapeutic) LMWH as Group C. Primary outcomes were overall mortality rates and length of stay (LOS) in ICU. Secondary outcomes were rates of major hemorrhagic and thrombotic events. RESULTS: Records of 475 patients were reviewed and 164 patients were included. No significant difference was detected in mortality rates between groups (p=0.135). Intensive care unit stay was 13 (9-24.5) days in Group A, 11 (8.75-23) days in Group B, and 13 (9-17) days in Group C without a significant difference (p=0.547). No significant difference was detected between groups in terms of thrombotic (p=0.565) and hemorrhagic events (p=0.615). CONCLUSION: A high-dose anticoagulation therapy and addition of aspirin to LMWH therapy did not decrease the mortality rates and LOS in ICU in critical ill COVID-19 patients. In addition, it did not increase the incidence of major hemorrhage and major thrombotic events.

Retroperitoneal Hemorrhage in Patients with COVID-19 Undergoing Hemodialysis: Three Case Reports.

A 73-year-old man receiving hemodialysis and antiplatelets was admitted with a mild case of COVID-19. Heparin was added, and iliopsoas hemorrhage developed. He was successfully treated by interventional radiology. A 76-year-old man receiving hemodialysis and antiplatelets was admitted with mild COVID-19. Heparin was added, and iliacus hemorrhage developed. Despite heparin discontinuation, he died of worsening pneumonia. A 74-year-old man undergoing hemodialysis was admitted with severe COVID-19. Gastrointestinal bleeding developed during continuous hemodiafiltration with heparin. Upon switching to nafamostat and increasing the dose, iliopsoas hemorrhage developed. Despite interventional radiology, he died of infectious complications. Attention to hemorrhagic complications is therefore needed in patients with COVID-19.

Effect of intermediate/high versus low dose heparin on the thromboembolic and hemorrhagic risk of unvaccinated COVID-19 patients in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: The optimal prophylactic dose of heparin in patients with coronavirus-associated disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the emergency department (ED) is debated. This study aimed to analyze different thromboprophylaxis approaches in unvaccinated COVID-19 patients admitted to ED without initial venous thromboembolism. METHODS: Retrospectively, the effect of intermediate/high versus low dose heparin treatment was evaluated from December 2020 to July 2021 in a tertiary Academic Hospital in northeast Italy. The primary outcome comprised arterial or venous thromboembolism or all-cause death within 30 days. Secondary outcomes comprised each single primary outcome component or major hemorrhagic event. Cox regression was used to determine predictors of the primary outcome and propensity score weights to balance the effect of heparin treatment on all outcomes. RESULTS: Data of 144 consecutive patients (age 70 ± 13, 33% females) were included in the study. High-dose prophylactic heparin was used in 69%, intermediate in 15%, and low in 17% of patients. The primary outcome occurred in 48 patients. Independent predictors of the primary outcome were COVID-19 severity (hazards ratio (HR) 1.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05-3.65, p = 0.035) and D-dimer levels (HR each log ng/dl 1.38, 95% CI 1.04-1.84, p = 0.026). Intermediate/high dose heparin did not affect the risk of the primary outcome compared with the low dose (weighted HR 1.39, 95% CI 0.75-2.56, p = 0.292). Intermediate/high heparin increased the risk of major hemorrhagic events (weighted HR 5.92, 95% CI 1.09-32, p = 0.039). CONCLUSIONS: In unvaccinated COVID-19 patients admitted to ED, prophylaxis with heparin at the intermediate/high dose did not reduce primary outcome compared with the low dose but increased the risk of major hemorrhagic events.

Anticoagulants for thrombosis prophylaxis in acutely ill patients admitted to hospital: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the benefits and harms of different types and doses of anticoagulant drugs for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients who are acutely ill and admitted to hospital. DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane CENTRAL, PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science, clinical trial registries, and national health authority databases. The search was last updated on 16 November 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Published and unpublished randomised controlled trials that evaluated low or intermediate dose low-molecular-weight heparin, low or intermediate dose unfractionated heparin, direct oral anticoagulants, pentasaccharides, placebo, or no intervention for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in acutely ill adult patients in hospital. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Random effects, bayesian network meta-analyses used four co-primary outcomes: all cause mortality, symptomatic venous thromboembolism, major bleeding, and serious adverse events at or closest timing to 90 days. Risk of bias was also assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias 2.0 tool. The quality of evidence was graded using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis framework. RESULTS: 44 randomised controlled trials that randomly assigned 90 095 participants were included in the main analysis. Evidence of low to moderate quality suggested none of the interventions reduced all cause mortality compared with placebo. Pentasaccharides (odds ratio 0.32, 95% credible interval 0.08 to 1.07), intermediate dose low-molecular-weight heparin (0.66, 0.46 to 0.93), direct oral anticoagulants (0.68, 0.33 to 1.34), and intermediate dose unfractionated heparin (0.71, 0.43 to 1.19) were most likely to reduce symptomatic venous thromboembolism (very low to low quality evidence). Intermediate dose unfractionated heparin (2.63, 1.00 to 6.21) and direct oral anticoagulants (2.31, 0.82 to 6.47) were most likely to increase major bleeding (low to moderate quality evidence). No conclusive differences were noted between interventions regarding serious adverse events (very low to low quality evidence). When compared with no intervention instead of placebo, all active interventions did more favourably with regard to risk of venous thromboembolism and mortality, and less favourably with regard to risk of major bleeding. The results were robust in prespecified sensitivity and subgroup analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Low-molecular-weight heparin in an intermediate dose appears to confer the best balance of benefits and harms for prevention of venous thromboembolism. Unfractionated heparin, in particular the intermediate dose, and direct oral anticoagulants had the least favourable profile. A systematic discrepancy was noted in intervention effects that depended on whether placebo or no intervention was the reference treatment. Main limitations of this study include the quality of the evidence, which was generally low to moderate due to imprecision and within-study bias, and statistical inconsistency, which was addressed post hoc. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020173088.

Major hemorrhage and mortality in COVID-19 patients on therapeutic anticoagulation for venous thromboembolism.

We observed multiple fatal intracranial hemorrhages shortly after initiating therapeutic anticoagulation for treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in COVID-19 patients suggesting increased anticoagulation risk associated with COVID-19. The objective of this study is to quantify risk of major hemorrhage in hospitalized COVID-19 patients on therapeutic anticoagulation for deep venous thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE). Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 receiving therapeutic anticoagulation for DVT, PE or both at four New York City hospitals were evaluated for hemorrhagic complications. These were categorized as major (including fatal) or clinically relevant non-major according to the criteria of the International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis. Hemorrhagic complications were correlated with clinical and laboratory data, ICD-10 code diagnoses and type of anticoagulation treatment. Minor hemorrhages were excluded. Major/clinically relevant hemorrhages occurred in 36 of 170 (21%) hospitalized COVID-19 patients being treated with therapeutic anticoagulation for VTE including 4 (2.4%) fatal hemorrhages. Hemorrhage was 3.4 times more likely with unfractionated heparin 27/76 (36%) compared to 8/81 (10%) with low molecular weight heparin (p = 0.002). Multivariate analysis showed that major hemorrhage was associated with intubation (p = 0.04) and elevated serum LDH (p < 0.001) and low fibrinogen (p = 0.05). Increased risk of hemorrhagic complications in treating VTE in hospitalized COVID-19 patients should be considered especially when using unfractionated heparin, in intubated patients, with low fibrinogen and/or elevated LDH. Checking serum fibrinogen and LDH before initiating therapeutic anticoagulation and monitoring coagulation parameters frequently may reduce bleeding complications.

[Improving outcome of COVID-19-associated thrombosis: the need for evaluation of fibrinolytic activation].

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and is known to have thrombotic complications. Various-sized thrombosis occurs in the arteries and veins, especially in lung tissue. The prevention and treatment of thrombosis is an important issue that is directly linked to its prognosis. Additionally, the drastic fibrinolytic enhancement and lethal bleeding in some severe COVID-19 are important issues. The efficacy of antiplatelet for COVID-19 is controversial. Thus, warfarin or tranexamic acid alone should be avoided. Heparin is effective for mild to moderate COVID-19 but is ineffective in severe cases since the anticoagulant activity of heparin is insufficient or heparin increases major bleeding. In severe COVID-19 cases with drastic fibrinolytic enhancement, heparin and nafamostat combination therapy may avoid lethal bleeding. In COVID-19 clinical practice, not only the coagulation activation was evaluated but also the fibrinolytic activation to consider treatment strategies.

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination does not influence anticoagulation levels in stable long-term warfarin treatment.

BACKGROUND: Since the outbreak of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, administration of the currently available vaccines has mostly been recommended for subjects at high risk, including elderly populations on long-term oral anticoagulation therapy (OAT) with warfarin. However, there is no clear evidence of the stability of the International Normalised Ratio (INR) after vaccine administration in those subjects on long-term OAT. The present study aimed to investigate the effects of COVID-19 vaccination on anticoagulation levels in patients on long-term OAT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: INR values of patients on long-term OAT who had undergone anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination from January to June 2021 were monitored for a total of 90 days follow-up after the first vaccination dose. These were then compared with INR values before vaccination. The second dose, when required, was administered during follow-up. Inclusion criterion was stable long-term INR for at least 6 months before vaccination. Exclusion criteria were recent surgery, intercurrent diseases, or treatment with medication that could compromise findings in the 3 months before vaccination and during follow-up. RESULTS: No differences were observed in the anticoagulation levels before and after COVID-19 vaccination in any of the patients studied: mean INR values were 2.39 (range 2.20-2.63) before vaccination and 2.40 (range 2.16-2.76) after vaccination (p=0.5). There was no difference in anticoagulation levels in relation to age, sex, indication for OAT, or type of vaccine (p>0.5). No bleeding or thrombotic complications were documented during follow-up. DISCUSSION: These are the first data to be reported on anticoagulation levels in patients on stable OAT after COVID-19 vaccination. No influence on the quality of OAT was detected after the vaccination; no bleeding or thrombotic complications were recorded in the follow-up. No difference between the four available COVID vaccines was found. Dose adjustment was only required in a few cases, thus confirming the stability of anticoagulation levels.

Four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate plus andexanet alfa for reversal of factor Xa inhibitor-associated bleeding: Case series.

PURPOSE: To manage factor Xa (FXa) inhibitor-associated bleeding, andexanet alfa or 4-factor prothrombin concentrate (4F-PCC) has been used to restore hemostasis. However, literature on the outcomes for patients who received both andexanet alfa and 4F-PCC is limited. SUMMARY: We report a case series of 5 patients who received andexanet alfa plus 4F-PCC for reversal of FXa inhibitor-associated bleeding. Patients were included in this case series if they received both andexanet alfa and 4F-PCC for reversal of FXa inhibitor-associated bleeding. They were followed to either discharge or death, and in-hospital complications related to concurrent use of andexanet alfa and 4F-PCC were documented. We report an incidence of thromboembolism of 40% (2 of 5 cases) and an in-hospital mortality rate of 60% (3 of 5 cases). Taking these cases together with those in the existing literature, we found a total of 23 reported cases of safety outcomes with andexanet alfa plus 4F-PCC. The overall incidence of thromboembolism was 35% (8 of 23 cases). CONCLUSION: This case series adds to the limited literature describing the outcomes for patients receiving andexanet alfa plus 4F-PCC. We encourage other institutions to report safety data on administering both agents.

Efficacy and safety of app-based remote warfarin management during COVID-19-related lockdown: a retrospective cohort study.

This study aimed to explore the effectiveness, and safety of internet-based warfarin management during the pandemic. In this single-center retrospective cohort study, we compared the safety and efficacy of online warfarin management using a smartphone app (the Alfalfa app) versus conventional outpatient clinic management from January 1, 2020 to March 31, 2020. Patients in the online management group used the Alfalfa app to communicate coagulation test results and other relevant information to a doctor or clinical pharmacist, who then responded with the dose adjustment plan and the date of the next blood test. The outcomes examined were the time in therapeutic range (TTR), incidence of clinical events (i.e., bleeding events, thrombotic events, warfarin-related emergency department visits, and warfarin-related hospital admissions), and the distribution of international normalized ratio (INR) values. Data from 117 patients were analyzed in this study. TTR was significantly higher in the online group than in the offline group (61.0% vs. 39.6%, P < 0.01). Incidence of major bleeding events, thrombotic events, and warfarin-related hospital admissions were comparable between the online and offline groups. However, minor bleeds (5.3% vs. 28.3%, P < 0.01) and warfarin-related emergency department visits (1.8% vs. 23.3%, P = 0.02) were significantly fewer in the online group than in the offline group. The proportion of INR values in the therapeutic range (53.8% vs. 40.1%, P < 0.01) was significantly higher in the online group. Warfarin management using the Alfalfa app appears to be a safe and effective method for warfarin management when patients cannot physically visit hospitals for follow-up.

Patients' and clinicians' perceptions of oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation: a systematic narrative review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) increases the risk of developing a stroke by 20%. AF related strokes are associated with greater morbidity. Historically, warfarin was the anticoagulant of choice for stroke prevention in patients with AF but lately patients are being switched or started on direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). DOACs are promoted as safer alternatives to warfarin and it is expected that they will be associated with fewer challenges both for patients and healthcare professionals. This systematic narrative review aimed to explore perspectives of patients and professionals on medicines optimisation of oral anticoagulation with vitamin K antagonists and DOACs in atrial fibrillation. METHODS: Prospero registration CRD42018091591. Systematic searches undertaken of research studies (qualitative and quantitative), published February 2018 to November 2020 from several databases (Web of Science, Scopus, Medline Via Ovid, CINHAL via Ebsco, and PubMED via NCBI) following PRISMA methodology. Data were organised using Covidence software. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of the included studies and synthesized the findings (thematic analysis approach). RESULTS: Thirty-four studies were included. Studies were critically appraised using established critical appraisal tools (Qualsyst) and a risk of bias was assigned. Clinicians considered old age and the associated complexities such as co-morbidities and the increased potential for bleeding as potential barriers to optimising anticoagulation. Whereas patients' health and medication beliefs influenced adherence. Notably, structured patient support was important in enhancing safety and effective anticoagulation. For both patients and clinicians, confidence and experience of safe anticoagulation was influenced by the presence of co-morbidities,  poor knowledge and understanding of AF and the purpose of anticoagulation. CONCLUSION: Age, complex multimorbidity and polypharmacy influence prescribing, with DOACs being perceived to be safer than warfarin. This systematic narrative review suggests that interventions are needed to support patient self-management. There are residual anxieties associated with long term anticoagulation in the context of complexities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Inhaled nebulised unfractionated heparin for the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19: A multicentre case series of 98 patients.

AIMS: To determine the safety and efficacy-potential of inhaled nebulised unfractionated heparin (UFH) in the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Retrospective, uncontrolled multicentre single-arm case series of hospitalised patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, treated with inhaled nebulised UFH (5000 IU q8h, 10 000 IU q4h, or 25 000 IU q6h) for 6 ± 3 (mean ± standard deviation) days. Outcomes were activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) before treatment (baseline) and highest-level during treatment (peak), and adverse events including bleeding. Exploratory efficacy outcomes were oxygenation, assessed by ratio of oxygen saturation to fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2 ) and FiO2 , and the World Health Organisation modified ordinal clinical scale. RESULTS: There were 98 patients included. In patients on stable prophylactic or therapeutic systemic anticoagulant therapy but not receiving therapeutic UFH infusion, APTT levels increased from baseline of 34 ± 10 seconds to a peak of 38 ± 11 seconds (P < .0001). In 3 patients on therapeutic UFH infusion, APTT levels did not significantly increase from baseline of 72 ± 20 to a peak of 84 ± 28 seconds (P = .17). Two patients had serious adverse events: bleeding gastric ulcer requiring transfusion and thigh haematoma; both were on therapeutic anticoagulation. Minor bleeding occurred in 16 patients, 13 of whom were on therapeutic anticoagulation. The oxygen saturation/FiO2 ratio and the FiO2 worsened before and improved after commencement of inhaled UFH (change in slope, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Inhaled nebulised UFH in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 was safe. Although statistically significant, inhaled nebulised UFH did not produce a clinically relevant increase in APTT (peak values in the normal range). Urgent randomised evaluation of nebulised UFH in patients with COVID-19 is warranted and several studies are currently underway.

A patient with COVID-19 and bleeding complications due to neurofibromatosis type 1 during VV-ECMO: A case report.

RATIONALE: The many deaths from coronavirus disease (COVID-19) since 2019 have caused global concern. Effective treatment has not yet been established; supportive care is the main treatment. It has been suggested that veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) may be effective in severe cases that do not respond to ventilator management. PATIENT CONCERNS AND DIAGNOSIS: We report the case of a 68-year-old woman with severe respiratory failure due to COVID-19 who was treated with VV-ECMO but suffered from bleeding complications. She presented with multiple café-au-lait lesions and neurofibromas on her skin and was diagnosed pathologically as having neurofibromatosis type 1(NF1). INTERVENTIONS AND OUTCOMES: Although she received appropriate anticoagulation therapy with heparin at the initiation of VV-ECMO, she had 5 episodes of severe bleeding, each requiring transcatheter arterial embolization and massive transfusion. In patients with NF1, vascular fragility has been noted due to vascular infiltration of neurofibromas and degeneration of vascular structures. Therefore, the causes of frequent bleeding complications may be related to the fragility of blood vessels in patients with NF1. VV-ECMO in patients with NF1 is likely to result in frequent bleeding complications and the need for massive transfusion. LESSON: We propose non-anticoagulation treatment strategy for the management of VV-ECMO in patients with NF1. Especially under the COVID-19 pandemic, more careful consideration should be given to the indications for VV-ECMO in patients with NF1.